...to say the 'I'

« "Ma, the world is coming to an end" | Main | From the blogosphere, to my doorstep »

July 22, 2004

Objectivity and the media

A couple of weeks ago, I pointed out how two different news outlets had two opposite headlines about the same story. That started a short conversation about media bias, but it got me thinking. In particular, I wanted to respond to this part of Lillie's comment:

What sort of objectivity are they trying to reach, exactly? If it's stories consisting of well-supported facts that avoid actual editorializing within the story, that's certainly an attainable goal, but if it's wholly unbiased coverage -- which seems to me the obvious defintition of "objective" -- then it seems that newspapers don't truly strive for that at all -- see headline example above. I know my political bias affects my headline writing [...] The professor said Europeans would laugh at the notion that any newspaper could be neutral, because they recognize (as we should) that reporters and editors are people, and people are never neutral.

I've never studied the European media, but I know a thing or two about American media. In the United States, the reference to the media as the "fourth branch of government" reflects its importance in the political life of the nation. The very first amendment to the Constitution--#1 in the Bill of Rights--stipulates that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The Framers knew from personal experience that only a free press can expose the missteps of a government; they realized that it could be powerful enough to ensure the proper behavior of a good government. In their endeavor to design the first government in history that would be truly accountable and at the mercy of its citizens, the Framers understood that a free press would be essential. It would be the means by which citizens would gain knowledge of exactly what their government was doing; it would act as the citizens' private investigators. And, of course, it would allow for the dissemination of political opinion.

In recognizing the power of the press, the Framers took it for granted that the news media would be charged with reporting the facts. Government would take a "hands off" approach to media in order to ensure that journalistic reporting would not be tainted. The media, accepting their role as the unelected fourth branch--the "watchdogs"--would be relied upon to present the facts.

Nowadays, the myriad media sources range from the serious to the inane to the completely ludicrous, and most Americans are able to distinguish amongst the categories. No one goes to the National Enquirer to learn the facts of a particular day's events. There are, however, a number of outlets within the "serious" category, from which most people acquire knowledge about the government's doings, as well as, obviously, news about all sorts of events unrelated to government. Almost all of these outlets publish ostensibly fact-based stories in addition to opinion pieces, and it is obvious where each institution draws its line.

In the end, Americans depend on these news sources to report the facts, sans editorializing, in those pieces that are presented as pure truth. Clearly, a particular organization may wish to publish only editorial pieces, but then, it is obligated to make clear the nature of its mission. Such resources are not the problem. The problem arises when institutions such as the New York Times, highly respected and long venerated for their timeliness and accuracy, fail to ensure that their professedly fact-based reporting is just that, and not a compilation of facts framed by the journalist's opinion.

Objectivity and lack of bias are qualities honest journalists should strive for. And yes, truly honest people can put aside their political views for the cause of just-the-facts reporting. This is not the easiest of tasks, but it is not the hardest. It also does not mean that journalism should be colorless.

It does mean recognizing that a headline saying that the 9/11 panel "Finds No Iraq-al Qaeda Tie," when that very same article reports that Saddam and al Qaeda were in contact (though Saddam did not help to plan the 9/11 attacks, specifically) is a blatant misrepresentation.

(Unfortunately, that article is now archived, but article included the report's mention of "evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's"--clearly not "no tie.")

[I want to get this up and out there. More to come.]

Posted by Carla at July 22, 2004 12:08 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rationalmind.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1023

Comments

Post a comment